A call for an Iron Range Congress

Last week, I attended a round table (roundish, anyway) discussion on the future of the Iron Range sponsored by a community outreach committee of Messiah Lutheran Church of Mountain Iron. Though the sponsoring group might seem odd for such a topic, I can personally attest that the Messiah congregation and its pastor, the Rev. Kristen Foster, is one of the most community-minded and forward thinking organizations on the Iron Range today. In 2002, I attended a series of Iron Range themed events sponsored by Messiah that helped shape the themes of my new book “Overburden: Modern Life on the Iron Range.” It was during these sessions that I met Pam Brunfelt, a local historian, who greatly influenced my essays on Iron Range history and culture. It was also where I first met and heard Paul Gruchow, the late Minnesota author who spoke passionately of the importance of humanity in the equation of economic development. His essay “What We Teach Our Rural Children” is also referenced in “Overburden.”

On Jan. 7, the round table discussion was designed to open a conversation on the general future of the Iron Range, but took a decidedly specific turn. The members of the discussion included native Iron Rangers and new Iron Rangers, public officials, everyday folks and a surprisingly broad range of ages and levels of political experience. The conversation kept returning to the idea of Iron Range towns and townships recognizing their common fate and making plans together. This includes school consolidations to allow for smaller class sizes and better curriculum. This includes cities working together more productively on shared wastewater plants and other services. And it includes a better relationship among levels of government to avoid duplication and enhance what we have. These may sound like things already discussed to the point of ear bleeding in our public discourse, because they are, but they are also things that aren’t happening fast enough, if at all.

School districts across the Iron Range are in crisis. Absolute crisis. Some are faring better than others, but all are struggling, some are near death and none have any hope to glean from the state budget forecast, local property taxes or mining production revenue in the foreseeable future. While people still quibble — perhaps justifiably — about the role of a school building in a small community, Iron Range students all over the place suffer for lack of a 21st century education. Few local officials have any incentive for putting their constituency at risk (and risk is inherent) and no higher elected officials have the courage or authority to act. The same problem exists in service sharing among cities.

An even larger problem goes unnoticed. While each town, district and government unit locks down and tries to protect itself, no one is enacting a region wide master plan. The agencies and organizations that could are limited by statute. Iron Range Resources is a vital state agency that distributes the mining production tax revenue and engages in economic development and rehabilitation, but it lacks the authority to force Town A to work with Town B. The agency is also hampered by the more partisan tone of its governance as an agency whose commissioner is appointed by the governor and board selected from among partisan legislators. RAMS (Range Association of Municipalities and Schools) is a great concept and a worthy advocacy group, but also lacks teeth (and elected management) for the nitty gritty. The Iron Range legislative delegation demonstrates how cohesiveness can work on a legislative level. But no one — from the local level up to the legislature — is able to accomplish what needs to happen by decree. What needs to happen is for every local unit of government to send representation to one large gathering in which the 5, 10 and 20 year plans for the Iron Range are hashed out in multiple sessions: with breaks between for citizens to discuss the matters with their elected officials. The end result will be tangible actions that maintain or expand service delivery in cities and counties and extend quality education in schools. Citizens can bring their ideas for the future, which can be prioritied by an open vote. Officials would then be charged with advancing those ideas.

We can call it the Iron Range Congress. Just like the Continental Congress of revolutionary days. Its job would be of similar importance for the future of the Range as that of 1776’s colonies. Sewers and snowplowing and advanced math might seem boring to some, but the budgetary issues related to all these things are choking the future of our homeland.

I can’t stress enough that I am not calling for a study, or a branding initiative, or a longterm consulting contract. I am talking about Hibbing and Chisholm, or Mt. Iron and Virginia, or Ely, Babbitt, Embarrass, Tower and Soudan getting together to talk about how they’re going to work together to survive in the new Iron Range century. I want the imaginary line between St. Louis and Itasca counties to be broken down so that future generations stop thinking of Nashwauk any differently than they do of Hoyt Lakes. There’s just no more time for nonsense. The stakes are high and the Iron Range needs to prove its learned something for 100 years of hard history. We can do it. What do you think?